DOCSLIB.ORG

North River – Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

NEW HAMPSHIRE STATEWIDE TARGET FISH COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT NORTH RIVER – FINAL REPORT Prepared for: Prepared by: July, 2018 Table of Contents I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 II. Designated River Delineation ................................................................................................... 1 Delineation Methods ............................................................................................................................ 1 Delineation Results ............................................................................................................................... 7 III. Reference River Data Selection .............................................................................................. 13 Reference River Selection Methods .................................................................................................... 13 Reference River Selection Results ....................................................................................................... 17 IV. TFC Model Development ........................................................................................................... 24 TFC Model Development Methods ...................................................................................................... 24 TFC Model Results ............................................................................................................................... 25 V. References Cited .......................................................................................................................... 28 Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................ 29 NH Target Fish Community Assessment Gomez and Sullivan Engineers Final North River Report i July, 2018 List of Tables Table - 1: Fish species removed from the NMDS delineation analysis. ....................................................... 3 Table - 2: GIS layers used in the delineation analysis. ................................................................................. 4 Table - 3: Gradient and watershed size class categories from the Northeast Aquatic Habitat Classification System layer. ........................................................................................................................... 4 Table - 4: Soil types used in the delineation analysis. .................................................................................. 5 Table - 5: Delineation parameter descriptions and break justifications. ..................................................... 7 Table - 6: Information pertaining to reaches delineated by the TFC breaks. .............................................. 7 Table - 7: Elevation classes and descriptions from the Northeast Aquatic Habitat Classification System layer. ........................................................................................................................................................... 13 Table - 8: Chemical classes and descriptions from the Northeast Aquatic Habitat Classification System layer. ........................................................................................................................................................... 13 Table - 9: Temperature classes and descriptions from the Northeast Aquatic Habitat Classification System layer. ............................................................................................................................................... 14 Table - 10: Characteristics used to select reference rivers for the North River. ........................................ 17 Table – 11a: Species counts for reference rivers for the North River (Part 1). .......................................... 22 Table – 11b: Species counts for reference rivers for the North River (Part 2). ......................................... 23 Table - 12: Comprehensive list of native species used for the Designated River watershed, as determined from the greater basin area. ....................................................................................................................... 25 Table - 13: Count of fish from reference river data and expected percentage (TFC Model) of species for the North River. .......................................................................................................................................... 27 Table – A1: List of common and scientific names for fish species in the fish community sample dataset (includes samples from NY, CT, RI, MA, VT, NH, and ME). ......................................................................... 30 NH Target Fish Community Assessment Gomez and Sullivan Engineers Final North River Report ii July, 2018 List of Figures Figure - 1: NMDS ordination plots highlighting the locations fish sampling sites in ordination space, based on the fish community. ...................................................................................................................... 8 Figure - 2: Gradient (left panel) and stream order (right panel), along with fish sampling locations. ........ 9 Figure - 3: Soils (left panel), watershed size-class (right panel), and NH predicted fish community types (right panel)................................................................................................................................................. 10 Figure - 4: Bedrock composition and water chemical classification. ......................................................... 11 Figure - 5: Delineated segments derived from the TFC break points. ....................................................... 12 Figure - 6: Theoretical example of evaluating the number of samples (i.e. whether data are sufficient for further analysis) using MultSE. ................................................................................................................... 16 Figure - 7: Initial selection of reference river fish community samples. .................................................... 18 Figure – 8a: MultSE (beginning at n=2) of fish community data for reference rivers initially selected (Part 1). ................................................................................................................................................................ 19 Figure – 8b: MultSE (beginning at n=2) of fish community data for reference rivers initially selected (Part 2). ................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Figure - 9: MultSE for the final reference river selection. .......................................................................... 21 Figure - 10: Graphical representation of the TFC Model for the North River. ............................................ 26 NH Target Fish Community Assessment Gomez and Sullivan Engineers Final North River Report iii July, 2018 I. Introduction Target Fish Community models have been developed for a number of instream flow related projects in the Northeast. The TFC development process, as defined by Bain and Meixler (2005), uses fish community data from the best available reference rivers that would characterize a feasible and currently relevant fish community. As such, the TFC model does not represent a historically “natural” community, but instead represents a community that would be expected to exist in the present time given relatively low direct anthropogenic impact on instream habitat. This approach has been useful for evaluating the biological integrity of streams and rivers by comparing the existing fish community with that of the predicted TFC. NHDES plans to use the TFC models in support of development of protected instream flows on Designated Rivers, and also as guidelines for evaluating the biological integrity. Across the State, there is the potential for wide variability in hydromorphologic and geologic features that would have shaped the natural fish community. Additionally, sections of the Designated Rivers may be geomorphologically different from other sections, and may have naturally supported different fish communities. Therefore, the Designated Rivers must first be delineated prior to TFC development. The goal of the delineation was to segment Designated Rivers with the fewest possible breaks based on fish community shifts on a watershed scale that are relevant to NHDES management goals. After delineation, suitable fish community data from reference rivers that are geomorphologically similar to each delineated segment were selected for potential use in the TFC model using an iterative GIS and data screening process. Once reference river data were thoroughly screened, TFC models were developed using the Bain and Meixler (2005) methodology. II. Designated River Delineation DELINEATION METHODS Delineation of the Designated Rivers into segments was based on a combination of datasets, as described in more detail below, including current fish community data, predicted fish community types, and a variety of GIS layers that would allow for visualization of changes in stream geomorphology and overall character. The exact location of river segment delineation was based on a combination of factors that would lead to shifts in fish communities that may pertain to management of instream flow and habitat. FISH COMMUNITY DATA ASSESSMENT Fisheries sampling data,
Recommended publications
  • Flood Study of the Suncook River in Epsom, Pembroke, and Allenstown, New Hampshire, 2009

    Flood Study of the Suncook River in Epsom, Pembroke, and Allenstown, New Hampshire, 2009

    Prepared in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Study of the Suncook River in Epsom, Pembroke, and Allenstown, New Hampshire, 2009 Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5127 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. Photograph looking downstream at area of Suncook River avulsion, Epsom, New Hampshire. (Photograph taken on June 18, 2008) Flood Study of the Suncook River in Epsom, Pembroke, and Allenstown, New Hampshire, 2009 By Robert H. Flynn Prepared in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5127 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2010 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Flynn, R.H., 2010, Flood study of the Suncook River in Epsom, Pembroke, and Allenstown, New Hampshire, 2009: U.S.
  • Technical Memorandum 84-7 2004 Merrimack River Watershed Fish

    Technical Memorandum 84-7 2004 Merrimack River Watershed Fish

    Technical Memorandum 84-7 2004 Merrimack River Watershed Fish Population Assessment Robert J. Maietta Jane Ryder Watershed Planning Program Worcester, MA July 2008 CN 179.4 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Laurie Burt, Commissioner Bureau of Resource Protection Glenn Haas, Acting Assistant Commissioner Division of Watershed Management Glenn Haas, Director 1 Introduction Fish population surveys were conducted at sixteen stations in the Merrimack River Watershed in Massachusetts using techniques similar to Rapid Bioassessment Protocol V as described originally by Plafkin et al. (1989) and later by Barbour et al. (1999) (See Figure 1). Standard Operating Procedures are described in Fish Collection Procedures for Evaluation of Resident Fish Populations (MassDEP 2006 CN 75.1). Surveys also included a habitat assessment component modified from that described in Barbour et al (1999). Methods Fish populations in the Merrimack River watershed were sampled during August and September of 2004 by electrofishing using a Smith Root Model 12 battery powered backpack electrofisher. A reach of between 80m and 100m was sampled by passing a pole-mounted anode ring, side to side through the stream channel and in and around likely fish holding cover. All fish shocked were netted and held in buckets. Sampling proceeded from an obstruction or constriction, upstream to an endpoint at another obstruction or constriction such as a waterfall or shallow riffle. Following completion of a sampling run, all fish were identified to species, measured, and released. Results of the fish population surveys can be found in Table 1. It should be noted that young-of-the-year (yoy) fish from most species (with the exception of salmonids) are not targeted for collection.
  • Tm-81-4 Nashua River Watershed Dwm Year 2003

    Tm-81-4 Nashua River Watershed Dwm Year 2003

    Technical Memorandum - TM-81-4 NASHUA RIVER WATERSHED DWM YEAR 2003 WATER QUALITY MONITORING DATA - RIVERS DWM Control Number: CN 107.2 Prepared By: Susan Connors December 2005 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Stephen R. Pritchard, Secretary Massachusetts Department Of Environmental Protection Robert W. Golledge, Jr., Commissioner Bureau of Resource Protection Glenn Haas, Acting Assistant Commissioner Division of Watershed Management Glenn Haas, Director Table of Contents Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 3 Table 1. MassDEP DWM 2003 Nashua River Watershed Water Quality Station Locations and Parameters............................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 1. MassDEP DWM 2003 Nashua River Watershed Water Quality Station Locations............... 5 Objectives...................................................................................................................................................... 6 Methods......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Station Observations..................................................................................................................................... 7 Survey Conditions ......................................................................................................................................
  • Water Quality

    Water Quality

    LAWRENCE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT LIHI APPLICATION ATTACHMENT B WATER QUALITY 314 CMR 4.00: DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 4.06: continued 314 CMR 4.00 : DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 4.06: continued TABLE 20 MERRIMACK RIVER BASIN BOUNDARY MILE POINT CLASS QUALIFIERS Merrimack River State line to Pawtucket Dam 49.8 - 40.6 B Warm Water Treated Water Supply CSO Pawtucket Dam to Essex Dam, 40.6 - 29.0 B Warm Water Lawrence Treated Water Supply CSO Essex Dam, Lawrence to 29.0 - 21.9 B Warm Water Little River, Haverhill CSO Little River, Haverhill to 21.9 - 0.0 SB Shellfishing Atlantic Ocean CSO The Basin in the Merrimack River - SA Shellfishing Estuary, Newbury and Newburyport Stony Brook Entire Length 10.3 - 0.0 B Warm Water Beaver Brook State line to confluence 4.2 - 0.0 B Cold Water with Merrimack River Spicket River State line to confluence 6.4 -0.0 B Warm Water with Merrimack River Little River State line to confluence with 4.3 - 0.0 B Warm Water Merrimack River Cobbler Brook Entire Length 3.7 - 0.0 B Cold Water Powwow River Outlet Lake Gardner to tidal 6.4 - 1.3 B Warm Water portion Tidal portion 1.3 - 0.0 SB Shellfishing Plum Island River North of High Sandy sand bar SA Shellfishing Outstanding Resource Water 1 Water quality standards for Class B and Class SB waters Designated Use/Standard Parameter Support ≥ 5.0 mg/l Inland waters, Class B, Dissolved Oxygen ≥ 60% saturation unless background conditions warm water fishery lower Massachusetts waters, MADEP Temperature ≤ 28.3ºC (83ºF) pH 6.0 to 8.3 S.U.
  • A Brief Concord River History

    A Brief Concord River History

    A Brief Concord River History Native Americans Lined by fertile lands and dotted with several good fishing sites, the lower stretch of the Concord River was at one time inhabited by large numbers of Native Americans, well before European settlers made their way across the Atlantic and inland from the coast. Seventeenth-century historian Daniel Goodkin claimed that before contact there were thousands of “Wamesit” making semi-permanent residence on the east side of the Concord, where it met the Merrimack. There they planted corn in the rich alluvial soil, fished “for salmon, shad, lamprey-eels, sturgeon, bass, and diverse others,” and hunted the reportedly abundant game in the surrounding woods. This group was one of two tribes in the area, with another, the “Pawtucket,” at Pawtucket Falls upstream on the Merrimack River. Both belonged to the Pennacook Middlesex Falls Confederacy, and their settlements swelled and shrank in size seasonally, as native visitors came and went with the migration cycles of the anadromous fish. In the 17th century, however, they were killed or run out of the river valley by fearful settlers. By 1726, native rights to the land along the Concord were nonexistent. East Chelmsford & Tewksbury Throughout the eighteenth century, the people of East Chelmsford, now downtown Lowell, were engaged primarily in farming and fishing. Joseph Fletcher and Jonathan Tyler owned the land abutting the Concord River on the west side, some of which they planted or managed as woodlot (see Map 1). On the east side, in Tewksbury, was the “Old Yellow House,” a tavern and hotel where the Wamesit village once stood and where Saints Memorial Medical Center stands today.
  • Suncook River – Providing Resiliency Following a Channel-Changing Flood Event

    Suncook River – Providing Resiliency Following a Channel-Changing Flood Event

    Suncook River – Providing Resiliency Following a Channel-Changing Flood Event New Hampshire Water & Watersheds Conference March 18, 2016 Outline • Study area and avulsion • Project initiation and fundraising • Designs, construction, costs 2 Study Area – Epsom, NH Background HUCKINS MILLS LITTLE SUNCOOK Channel Avulsion RIVER Channel Abandonment LEIGHTON BROOK Migrating SUNCOOK RIVER Knickpoints Aggradation Infrastructure 1992 2011 Rt 4 Bridge Little Suncook River Suncook River Flows Dams Avulsion Site Leighton Brook 2006 – Day after Flood Suncook River Flow Avulsion Site Former Channel USACOE Sand Pit 2006 – Day after Flood Suncook River Flow Suncook River Flow USACOE 2006 – Day after Flood Suncook River Flow Leighton Brook USACOE 2006 – Day after Flood Downstream Deposition USACOE Current Conditions Glacial Lag Deposits Surrounded by Sand Incision and Widening on Leighton Brook Former Channel Elevation Infrastructure Black Hall Rd - Leighton Brook Rt 4 Bridge - Suncook River Buildings – Leighton Brook Project Goals • Protect bridge infrastructure –Rt 4 bridge over Suncook River –Black Hall Rd bridge over Leighton Brook • Control upstream migration of knickpoints on Suncook River and tributaries • Control channel widening Project Initiation and Fundraising 14 Project Initiation and Fundraising 15 Project Initiation and Fundraising 16 Project Initiation and Fundraising 17 2006 • NHDES Geological Survey conducts post-avulsion baseline survey • $8,000 2007 • NHDES and U.S. EPA Section 319 Grant - $24,000 • Non-federal match of $16,000 from
  • Merrimac, MA Waterbody Assessment, 305(B)/303(D), and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Status

    Merrimac, MA Waterbody Assessment, 305(B)/303(D), and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Status

    South MA84A-28_2008 Hampton Powwow River (5) Lake Tuxbury Pond Pow Wow River MA84A-28_2008 Newton Powwow River (5) Back River Amesbury Lake Attitash 108 MA84A-22_2008 Cobbler Brook (5) MA84002_2008 Lake Attitash (5) Merrimac Cobbler Brook Plaistow 110 MA84A-05_2008 Merrimack River (5) 495 Merrimack River East Meadow River Lake West Haverhill Newbury MA84039_2008 Mill Pond (3) Notes: 1) Adapted from Final Massachusetts Year 2008 Integrated List of Waters; available at http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/08list2.pdf113 Mill 2) Waterbodies shown without an identified category are assigned as Category 3 by definition.Pond 3) For additional information on TMDLs and to view reports, see: http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/tmdls.htm 4) For Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards, and waterbody classes and uses, see: http://www.mass.gov/dep/service/regulations/314cmr04.pdf 0 0.5 Waterbody Assessment and TMDL Status Miles Map produced by EPA Region I GIS Center Map Tracker ID 6678, February 25, 2010 Merrimac, MA Data Sources: TeleAtlas, Census Bureau, USGS, MassDEP Waterbody Label Assessment of Waterbody Segment Category 4a: TMDL is completed and approved for Waterbodies one or more pollutants State ID, Category 2: Attaining some uses; other uses Waterbody Name (Category) not assessed Impairment not caused by a pollutant. Swamp/Marsh (TMDL(s) approved for this waterbody) Category 4c: Category 3: Insufficient information to make MS4 Urbanized Areas (2000 Census) assessments for any use. Category 5: Impaired or threatened for one or more See companion table for a listing of pollutants, uses and requiring a TMDL. non-pollutants, and TMDLs for each waterbody Municipal Boundaries.
  • The Spicket River & Facella Lot Restoration Project / Rubchinuk

    The Spicket River & Facella Lot Restoration Project / Rubchinuk

    The Spicket River & Facella Lot Restoration Project / Rubchinuk (RFR BWSC 11 NRD 01) Final Project Report Groundwork Lawrence 10/31/2014 Funds from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s Natural Resource Damages (NRD) Program was integral to this project. Soft costs – including survey, design, permitting and project management – as well as construction costs were funded through a grant awarded by the NRD Program. By order of the Suffolk Superior Court entered on March 10, 2010, funds were transferred to the NRD Trust to support community revitalization projects lieu of conducting a project on the former Rubchinuk Landfill site on East Street in Middleton, Massachusetts, a property contaminated by the illegal landfilling of construction and demolition debris. Introduction Groundwork Lawrence received funding from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection for the implementation of several restoration projects along the Spicket River. This report summarizes the activities undertaken to fulfill the project requirements. The Facella Lot Restoration and Park Project created a new waterfront pocket park along the Spicket River adjacent to a prominent gateway to the city. The program for the park was determined through a two meeting community outreach process with residents and guidance from city staff. The park is an integral component to the regeneration of this part of the city. The Spicket River Bank and Instream Restoration project was developed five years in partnership with the Commonwealth’s Division of Ecological Restoration. Three sites were improved through a range of restoration projects designed to improve the habitat and accessibility along the Spicket River Corridor. These improvements are important to the wildlife living along and in the stream and provide safe locations for the community to safely access the river.
  • Provides This File for Download from Its Web Site for the Convenience of Users Only

    Provides This File for Download from Its Web Site for the Convenience of Users Only

    Disclaimer The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) provides this file for download from its Web site for the convenience of users only. Please be aware that the OFFICIAL versions of all state statutes and regulations (and many of the MassDEP policies) are only available through the State Bookstore or from the Secretary of State’s Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) Subscription Service. When downloading regulations and policies from the MassDEP Web site, the copy you receive may be different from the official version for a number of reasons, including but not limited to: • The download may have gone wrong and you may have lost important information. • The document may not print well given your specific software/ hardware setup. • If you translate our documents to another word processing program, it may miss/skip/lose important information. • The file on this Web site may be out-of-date (as hard as we try to keep everything current). If you must know that the version you have is correct and up-to-date, then purchase the document through the state bookstore, the subscription service, and/or contact the appropriate MassDEP program. 314 CMR: DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 4.06: continued FIGURE LIST OF FIGURES A River Basins and Coastal Drainage Areas 1 Hudson River Basin (formerly Hoosic, Kinderhook and Bashbish River Basins) 2 Housatonic River Basin 3 Farmington River Basin 4 Westfield River Basin 5 Deerfield River Basin 6 Connecticut River Basin 7 Millers River Basin 8 Chicopee River Basin 9 Quinebaug
  • Chapter 8 Natural Resources, Open Space & Recreation

    Chapter 8 Natural Resources, Open Space & Recreation

    Master Plan Chapter 8 Natural Resources, Open Space & Recreation Beaches, marshes, farm fields, pastures, and views of Merrimack River form Newburyport’s heritage landscapes, with many open spaces providing habitat for endangered, rare, and threatened species. More than 20 parks offer residents and visitors the opportunity for wholesome and healthful recreation and lifestyle opportunities, while local regulations and permitting processes seek to encourage the incorporation of green infrastructure in development projects to assist in the provision of clean air, clean water, storm water dispersal and noise attenuation. This chapter provides a structure for ongoing efforts to protect and manage the City’s natural areas, to maintain, expand and improve its parks and recreational spaces, and to continue to enhance management of its green infrastructure. Since the Master Plan of 2001 was complete, the City has made great strides in achieving its goals in the area of Natural Resources, Open Space and Recreation, including: • Reopening the Merrimac River clam flats; • Adding full time Parks Department staff, including a Director and Manager; • Creating the position of Conservation Administrator; • Adopting a Beach Management Plan; • Implementing City-wide wetlands protection and storm water management ordinances and regulations; • Establishing the Open Space Committee, who is instrumental in pursuing land purchases that protect important open space resources, create connections between existing open spaces, recreational areas, the downtown, and
  • Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey

    Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey

    ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY AT THE MILLIE TURNER/BLAKE MILL DAM REMOVAL PROJECT PEPPERELL, MASSACHUSETTS POPULAR REPORT HISTORIC CONTEXT By Barbara Donohue 11 Bright Road Belmont, Massachusetts 02478 For Alexander Hackman Department of Fish and Game Division of Ecological Restoration 251 Causeway Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02114 October 29, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................. iii MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... v LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... vi 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN ..................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Statement of Purpose ............................................................................................................ 10 2.2 Documentary Research ......................................................................................................... 10 2.3 Field Reconnaissance
  • New England Water Supplies – a Brief History M. Kempe Page 23 Of

    New England Water Supplies – a Brief History M. Kempe Page 23 Of

    New England Water Supplies – A Brief History M. Kempe Chapter 2 – The Search for Water – Growth and Water Source Development Timeline – Water Source Development National and World Events 1929- The Great Baby Boom 1970’s – Growth of Depression Environmentalism Rapid population 1914-1918 1941-1945 Growth of Population growth WWI WWII suburbs growth slows 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 Many communities augment WPA funds help 1960’s drought original supplies build systems Efficient fixtures Rapid growth of indoor plumbing Post-drought supply shortfalls Era of large water Metering slows projects, dams and Water conservation waste reservoirs instead of Water Events diversions Finding the water has always been one of the main tasks for the water supplier, occasionally a thankless task, even a maligned one. Since the growth of environmentalism in the 1970’s, many people picture a water engineer in terms of John Huston’s shady Noah Cross character from the film “Chinatown”. Most books written about New England water supplies tend to focus on the impacts of reservoir construction, prime examples being “The Day Four Quabbin Towns Died” about Quabbin Reservoir and “The Village of the Dammed” about Saugatuck Reservoir in the Bridgeport system. The loss of one’s home for a reservoir that benefits a distant city is almost certain to create a lifetime of resentment. The fundamental dilemma is that cities exist where they are because of commerce and they drive the economy of the region to everyone’s benefit, even the rural areas that are asked to help provide resources like water. But the cities overwhelm water resources where they exist and have to import water from elsewhere.